Traditional Aircraft Engine = 70 year old technology, high fuel consumption, high cost, high weight, no stock smart ignition system, questionable reliability. How many of us would be happy if GM or Ford were still fitting a 1930’s engine in our new cars? Power plant technology should match the technology that is available for cars today, and keep up with that that can be fitted in our panels today. This does not mean older traditional aircraft should not keep flying and have a place in aviation today.
High compression ratio? The 912 iS has a 10.8:1 compression ratio and still runs on mogas. Compression ratio doesn't inherently determine the fuel octane required by an engine.
Not so much with the Rotax engines because the combustion chambers are more modern and because the fuel delivery and timing can be closely controlled. Not so much with a traditional Lycoming, where compression ratio is the dominant factor.
@@KitplanesMagazine That was basically my point. Those Rotax engines were also designed in the '80s, and things have improved significantly since then. If we're talking about modern engines designed to run on 100 octane fuel, we could see compression ratios in the 12-14:1 range.
I hear LSA is changing in the US again (for the better). Higher weight, higher stall speed, retracts, constant speed, etc. And gets things like the C172 and C150 into the LSA. But allows many European high-efficiency "ultralights" to be flown under LSA in the US.
That's correct. The MOSAIC program has been published and is currently in the public-comment phase. It's unlikely we'll see the as an actual rule before mid-to-late 2024.
Traditional Aircraft Engine = 70 year old technology, high fuel consumption, high cost, high weight, no stock smart ignition system, questionable reliability.
How many of us would be happy if GM or Ford were still fitting a 1930’s engine in our new cars?
Power plant technology should match the technology that is available for cars today, and keep up with that that can be fitted in our panels today.
This does not mean older traditional aircraft should not keep flying and have a place in aviation today.
I'd be delighted. You can at least fix it yourself without using computers
@@ashleywelch2143 Just like a Rotax then?
if you get me in the airplane--i'll tell you what i think
Great interview!
Why, thank you!
Awesome. To think that I could fly one of these on a UK Microlight licence, assuming it ticks all of the boxes, would be fantastic.
High compression ratio? The 912 iS has a 10.8:1 compression ratio and still runs on mogas. Compression ratio doesn't inherently determine the fuel octane required by an engine.
Not so much with the Rotax engines because the combustion chambers are more modern and because the fuel delivery and timing can be closely controlled. Not so much with a traditional Lycoming, where compression ratio is the dominant factor.
@@KitplanesMagazine That was basically my point. Those Rotax engines were also designed in the '80s, and things have improved significantly since then. If we're talking about modern engines designed to run on 100 octane fuel, we could see compression ratios in the 12-14:1 range.
@@KitplanesMagazine ... heck, Ford's naturally aspirated engines have a 12:1 compression ratio, and they run on 87 octane.
@@PistonAvatarGuyonly possible with direct injection. DI would cause major issues in aviation considering the issues it causes in car engines
@@Second.Nature.Lawn.Michigan What issues are those?
I hear LSA is changing in the US again (for the better). Higher weight, higher stall speed, retracts, constant speed, etc. And gets things like the C172 and C150 into the LSA. But allows many European high-efficiency "ultralights" to be flown under LSA in the US.
That's correct. The MOSAIC program has been published and is currently in the public-comment phase. It's unlikely we'll see the as an actual rule before mid-to-late 2024.
I’m interested if there is a difference in P factor with that prop.
None that you would notice.